Freedom of information still a Climategate sore point

Just when you thought we were done discussing "Climategate"... UK members of parliament have today published a report analysing the variousinquiries that were carried out last year after more than 1000 emails belonging to scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich and held on the university server were leaked online.

The House of Commons science and technology committee agreed it is time to "move on" from the rows. But it warned that a few things still needed to be sorted out.

More widely, the MPs are concerned that scientists are still largely in
the dark about what the legislation requires of them. "We regard this
matter as sufficiently serious that we want to see it resolved," say the
MPs. They asked the government's information commissioner to tell
scientists what it thinks the rules are before the next academic year.

The report is a second assessment of the affair by MPs, after their rushed report brought out before last year's general election. But it lays no further charges against former CRU director Phil Jones
and his colleagues. In particular, it backs the preliminary finding of
the first MPs' inquiry that the scientists were not guilty of trying to subvert
peer review in their "robust" discussions of unpublished papers written
by rival researchers.

Phil Jones and Michael Mann have been prancing around the public square as though they've been exonerated of all criticisms and awarded blue ribbons. Their self-satisfaction is misplaced.

Dennis
on January 25, 2011 7:41 PM

Climategate did not expose a hoax, it WAS the hoax.

It's a pity that climate cynics are not held to the same standards as they are attempting to impose on scientists.

Margaret
on January 25, 2011 8:59 PM

It is interesting that while the vice-chancellor gave a verbal assurance to the inquiry that the emails that were alleged to have been deleted still exist, a subsequent FOI request for them has been declined on the grounds that they don't.

I wonder when they went missing for the second time-- was it before or after the vice-chancellor gave his assurance?

Great info, do you mind if I reference back to it? I'm blogging about this too, thanks for sharing it.

Sean
on January 26, 2011 10:22 PM

I agree with you Dennis. Unfortunately the general public listens to only the louder people, which of course are the climate sceptics, and they love a good conspiracy theory. Even though there isn't one. So the climate sceptics are shouting and pointing to the poor scientists which means that no one will pay attention to the standards of the ones making the accusations. It will not stop there however, since the Republicans have taken control, they will continue the shouting and finger pointing and of course no one will question them. It's not going to stop.

Sean
on January 26, 2011 10:22 PM

I agree with you Dennis. Unfortunately the general public listens to only the louder people, which of course are the climate sceptics, and they love a good conspiracy theory. Even though there isn't one. So the climate sceptics are shouting and pointing to the poor scientists which means that no one will pay attention to the standards of the ones making the accusations. It will not stop there however, since the Republicans have taken control, they will continue the shouting and finger pointing and of course no one will question them. It's not going to stop.

Sean
on January 27, 2011 12:48 AM

I agree with you Dennis. Unfortunately the general public listens to only the louder people, which of course are the climate sceptics, and they love a good conspiracy theory. Even though there isn't one. So the climate sceptics are shouting and pointing to the poor scientists which means that no one will pay attention to the standards of the ones making the accusations. It will not stop there however, since the Republicans have taken control, they will continue the shouting and finger pointing and of course no one will question them. It's not going to stop.

Shane
on January 28, 2011 12:37 AM

It is SOOOO easy to be an AGW sceptic. The antics of top climate scientists give out huge amounts of ammo. I would be very worried about the morals of a scientist that is not sceptical, especially where there is any evidence of information being withheld.

The solution is easy - get ALL the data and ALL the models in the public domain. Not to do so is criminal...warmaggedon may of already started, it is for the greater good.

In November of 2009, thousands of emails and other documents were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and made public. Within a few days, every conservative hack in America was trying to turn them into a worldwide, Al Gore, conspiracy.

What followed was a series of 5 independent inquiries:

After the July 2010 reports, the New York Times referred to Climategate as a “manufactured controversy,” and expressed the hope that reports clearing the scientists “will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies,”.

The Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that “readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.”

CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.

In June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”

By Harryhammer
on February 21, 2011 12:39 AM

There have been 5 separate independent inquiries into the case.

After the July 2010 reports, the New York Times referred to Climategate as a “manufactured controversy,” and expressed the hope that reports clearing the scientists “will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies.”

Definitions of diversionary on the Web:

* (of tactics e.g.) likely or designed to confuse or deceive

The Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that,

“readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.”

CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.

In June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a,

“highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”

Here’s a novel idea that many of you should take to heart:

Apologize to those you’ve wrongly accused and stop spreading disinformation.